Some suppliers admit to working with indicted Apple manager

Former Apple global supply manager Paul Shin Devine has pleaded not guilty to charges that he took kickbacks from Asian parts suppliers in exchange for leaking information about unreleased products. The plot thickens, however, thanks to several suppliers offering contrasting reports on whether or not they paid kickbacks to Devine.

Devine made his plea in federal court Monday afternoon after having been indicted on 23 counts of money laundering, wire fraud, and accepting kickbacks of over $1 million from would-be Apple suppliers. He, in partnership with Singapore resident Andrew Ang, allegedly solicited payments from suppliers in exchange for confidential information about Apple products that would enable the companies to win contracts with the company.

Taiwanese company Pegatron said on Tuesday that it was "sorry" about the situation and that it was investigating Devine's involvement with one of its subsidiaries, Kaeder Electronics. According to a statement sent to IDG, Pegatron said that it was "surprised to learn of the alleged conduct." The company has already suspended one Kaeder manager that was implicated in the scheme.

At the same time, South Korea-based Cresyn told Reuters that it didn't have any inappropriate relationship with Devine, though the company did say that Devine was paid for "consulting advice" at some point in time. "Devine approached us first and offered to give us business consulting to help advance into the US market," a Cresyn official said. "We accepted his offer and received general information about US markets, and in return we offered him a small consulting fee. But this was based on a legal contract we made with him in 2007."

Several of the other companies accused of getting involved with Devine include Jin Li Mould Manufacturing, Nishoku Technology, and Glocom/Lateral Solutions and Fastening Technologies, though they appear to be staying mum for now.

Well it sounds like not all of the accusations will stick, but thats how litigation in the sates ussually goes. They have the core charges that will definently get you, they they add on a few more to build a mountain to lean against you. I have no doubt he's probbly guilty as sin, but probably not as bad as they are making it out to be.

Well it sounds like not all of the accusations will stick, but thats how litigation in the sates ussually goes. They have the core charges that will definently get you, they they add on a few more to build a mountain to lean against you. I have no doubt he's probbly guilty as sin, but probably not as bad as they are making it out to be.

Odds are there'll be some deal cut along the way anyway, no one wants to prosecute for 100,000 different charges resulting in a billion year prison sentence when it involves a tonne of work proving some of the minor claims. It probably actually is as bad as it sounds, there'll just never be an attached prison sentence for all of it.

Well it sounds like not all of the accusations will stick, but thats how litigation in the sates ussually goes. They have the core charges that will definently get you, they they add on a few more to build a mountain to lean against you. I have no doubt he's probbly guilty as sin, but probably not as bad as they are making it out to be.

Having been involved in a criminal trial of a friend, I can verify that this is true. The point being that you would have no doubt he's as guilty as sin.

In my friend's trial, they brought 29 counts against him initially. Now, the very first psychological reaction to that number -- 29 counts! -- is obvious: he's guilty! (See Capturing the Friedmans for a rundown on elevating criminal counts -- in his case, almost 200 -- to help guarantee a guilty verdict.) The press -- Ars included -- plays their part by announcing the number of counts, the specifics of those counts, and any alleged activity during the process. Almost always, this goes toward casting the defendant as guilty, whether they are or not. All working together to rile public opinion against the plaintiff, and also influencing the jury toward a guilty verdict from the get-go.

In my friend's trial, they brought 29 counts against him initially. Now, the very first psychological reaction to that number -- 29 counts! -- is obvious: he's guilty! (See Capturing the Friedmans for a rundown on elevating criminal counts -- in his case, almost 200 -- to help guarantee a guilty verdict.) The press -- Ars included -- plays their part by announcing the number of counts, the specifics of those counts, and any alleged activity during the process. Almost always, this goes toward casting the defendant as guilty, whether they are or not. All working together to rile public opinion against the plaintiff, and also influencing the jury toward a guilty verdict from the get-go.

-Pie

What does it matter if it's 23 counts or 8? If you did the crime, do the fucking time.

"At the same time, South Korea-based Cresyn told Reuters that it didn't have any inappropriate relationship with Devine, though the company did say that Devine was paid for "consulting advice" at some point in time. "Devine approached us first and offered to give us business consulting to help advance into the US market,"

A quick translation for those who don't understand business in Korea. The following sentence: "Devine approached us first and offered to give us business consulting to help advance into the US market,"

What does it matter if it's 23 counts or 8? If you did the crime, do the fucking time.

I think you missed the point of his comment. The idea is that there is a common misconception of what "counts" mean, such that people are increasingly unlikely to consider the possibility of the accused being innocent the higher the number of counts he or she is charged with.

The reasoning goes like this: One might conceivably be charged with one, or even two or three, counts of a crime one has not committed. However, if the accused is charged with one hundred, or two hundred, or more counts, then the likelihood of all those charges being illegitimate appears to drop.

It's just counterintuitive, is all. It's why when you tell people that you've flipped a coin ten times in a row and gotten heads as a result, and then ask them what the likelihood of it being heads on the 11th toss, you get people who stray from the correct answer-- that the odds of that 11th heads coming up is 50%, just as it was the previous ten tosses, because each individual coin toss is a separate event.

In many cases, the various "counts" are examples of the same event repeated. The issue before the court is whether or not that act constitutes a crime. Often this involves the accused's knowledge or intent in such a way that either he is guilty on all counts, or on none-- but people find this counterintuitive. The prosecutor is deliberately stacking the deck and reducing the accused's credibility in the minds of a jury by looking for whatever means necessary to increase the number of counts in an indictment.

With a charge like burglary, this perception might make sense. If someone was charged with burglary on eight different occasions, at eight different locations, then there might be some validity to this impression. However, in a crime such as the one under consideration here, it is very likely that the same sequence of events occurred in the same way many times-- payments made, consideration offered. The issue is whether that repeated act constitues a crime, and like the coin, the number of times the act is committed has no bearing on the result of the flip.